remedies
: they are the legal consequence of a breach of contract or of one or both
parties not conforming to the legal requirements of a binding contractual agreement.
Yet the notion of a quasi-contract puts such claims on an equal footing with the
original claims under a contractual agreement and thus places such claims
misleadingly into the wrong legal category. The re-conceptualization of these
instructive overview, see
Meier
(fn 46) 2 ff.
48
See
Pomponius
, D 12, 1, 5;
Ulpian
, D 12, 1, 9, 9; and D 12, 1, 11, 2;
Paul
, D 12, 6, 65, 5 and 8; cf
Zimmermann
(fn 4) 897 f; more detailed
W Flume
, Der Wegfall der Bereicherung in der Entwicklung
vom römischen zum geltenden Recht, in: Festschrift für Niedermeyer (1953) 103, 104 ff.
49
See
H Donellus
, Commentarii de iure civili (Opera omnia, Firenze 1840–47) lib XIV, cap X, § 1
and lib X, cap XVI, §§ 3, 5 (contractual explanations);
A Vinnius
, In Quatuor Libros Institutionum
Imperialium Commentarius (Amsterdam 3rd edn 1659) lib III, tit XXVIII, § 6 [4];
JG Heineccius
,
Elementa iuris civilis secundum ordinem Institutionum (ed by LJF Höpfner) (Giessen 1784) §§ 966,
987 ff;
J Voet
, Commentarius ad Pandectas (Paris 1829) lib XII, tit IV, § 1 and lib XII, tit VI, § 1
(classifications as quasi-contractual). The
condictio furtiva
was often qualified as quasi-delictual; cf
Voet
, supra, lib XIII, tit I, § 2. More detailed
Jansen
(2003) 120 SavZ/Rom 144 ff.
50
See, for Germany,
FC von Savigny
, System des heutigen römischen Rechts (Berlin 1840–51)
vol V, 109 f, 503 ff; §§ 812–822 BGB (1900). In France, the Cour de cassation made the decisive
step in the
arrêt Boudier
,
1893
Sirey
prem part 281, 283; however, it did not relate the decisive
principle of equity „qui défend de s‟enrichir au détriment d‟autrui‟ to the Roman
condictiones
, but to
the
actio de in rem verso
. See also
Zimmermann
(1995) 15 OJLS 409 f. In England, unjustified
enrichment has only been acknowledged as a source of obligation since 1991:
Lipkin Gorman v
Karpnale
[1991] 2 AC 548; the first textbook on the law of restitution was published, by
Robert Goff
(as he then was) and
Gareth Jones
, in 1966. The American history is somewhat older: here
unjustified enrichment was acknowledged as a ground of action already in the first Restatement of
the Law of Restitution (1937); see
JP Dawson
, Unjust Enrichment. A Comparative Analysis (1951)
111 f.
51
See
von Savigny
(fn 50) vol V, 110, 526 and passim; cf
Jansen
(2003)120 SavZ/Rom 149 ff. For
France, see
Zweigert/Kötz
(fn 47) 545 ff.
52
Meier
(fn 46) 2 ff; cf also
Stoljar
(1959) 75 LQR 53 ff.
53
P Birks/G McLeod
, The Implied Contract Theory of Quasi-Contract: Civilian Opinion Current in the
Century before Blackstone (1986) 6 OJLS 46, 56 ff, 68 ff. Indeed, the quasi-contractual conception of
unjustified enrichment even led to many practical problems and unsatisfactory results; cf also
Jansen
(2003) 120 SavZ/Rom 145 f.
10
claims within the law of unjustified enrichment could therefore be seen as an
important legal advance. Moreover, in most cases, such an approach works well: if
one party receives a benefit under a void contract or without consideration, it may
indeed be argued to be unjustifiedly enriched at the other party‟s expense.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |